guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#columbian-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-mayflower-national-guard
This is the start of #columbian-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-mayflower-national-guard channel.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-16 05:06 p.m.
New Case
Case Type
civil
Case Number
CV-255-25
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
Brenda Cornwallis
Brenda Cornwallis 2025-06-16 05:06 p.m.
@cabot
Brenda CornwallisBrenda Cornwallis used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-16 05:06 p.m.
Case Modified
@Brenda Cornwallis has added @cabot to the case channel.
Brenda CornwallisBrenda Cornwallis used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-16 05:06 p.m.
Case Modified
@Brenda Cornwallis has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 05:16 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 05:19 p.m.
Thank you
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 05:19 p.m.
Let's summon
cabotcabot used
/summon
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-16 05:19 p.m.
:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @dero(edited)
cabotcabot used
/summon
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-16 05:20 p.m.
:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @actxrz(edited)
cabotcabot used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-16 05:20 p.m.
Case Modified
@cabot has added @dero to the case channel.
cabotcabot used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-16 05:20 p.m.
Case Modified
@cabot has added @actxrz to the case channel.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 05:20 p.m.
I will be moving for a preliminary injunction
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 05:20 p.m.
Excellent thank you
Brenda CornwallisBrenda Cornwallis used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-16 05:58 p.m.
Case Modified
@Brenda Cornwallis has added @DauuX to the case channel.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 06:03 p.m.
Hello and thank you
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 06:04 p.m.
@cabot I have reason to believe that this case is past SoL and that "Member A" is either made up or his description is made up
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 06:05 p.m.
So my question is whether Plaintiff could identify the person
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 06:45 p.m.
@meowiitten
DauuXDauuX
So my question is whether Plaintiff could identify the person
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:45 p.m.
Not to you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:45 p.m.
@cabot I will disclose his identity to you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:46 p.m.
But not to opposing counsel
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 06:46 p.m.
Sure that works
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 06:46 p.m.
My personal messages will suffice, is this for fear of retaliation or what’s the reason the person isn’t named
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 06:46 p.m.
@meowiitten
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 06:48 p.m.
How on Earth do you expect me to argue SoL or present amy facts if I don't know the person's identity
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 06:48 p.m.
any*
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 06:49 p.m.
The person is currently DD'ed apparently, there is not much more retaliation we can do
cabotcabot
My personal messages will suffice, is this for fear of retaliation or what’s the reason the person isn’t named
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:52 p.m.
The issue is that if this case is resolved in our favor, then these people would likely be owed due process in some kind of pre-deprivation hearing or other forum
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:52 p.m.
Our members
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:53 p.m.
Our Member A, specifically
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:53 p.m.
I'm not sure the MNG would be happy about that, and I'm not so sure that would be a fair forum
DauuXDauuX
How on Earth do you expect me to argue SoL or present amy facts if I don't know the person's identity
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:54 p.m.
You are under no right to know the idenities of our members
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:54 p.m.
This is well settled
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 06:55 p.m.
I already have an idea of who it might be so that won't stop "retaliation"
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:55 p.m.
I'm glad you don't know who they are
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:55 p.m.
That's the whole point
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 06:55 p.m.
But the facts are not true, at least not in the majority of cases
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:56 p.m.
His identity has been communicated to the judge
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 06:58 p.m.
Can I know whether his discharge took place more than 30 days ago
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:58 p.m.
Less
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:58 p.m.
I cannot give the exact amount of days because that would give it away
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 07:00 p.m.
Yeah I am satisfied that these are real individuals within the statute of limitations
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:00 p.m.
Also I will note that this is a case about the constitutionality of the discharge scheme
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:01 p.m.
So the MNG is not disadvantaged by not knowing their identities
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:01 p.m.
We do not contend that the policy in the statute wasn't followed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:01 p.m.
It was
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:01 p.m.
We contend that the statutory scheme is, however, unconstitutional
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 07:03 p.m.
So the relief you’re asking for is just declaratory?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 07:04 p.m.
You don’t want these people reinstated if the scheme is found unconstitutional?
meowiittenmeowiitten
Also I will note that this is a case about the constitutionality of the discharge scheme
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 07:05 p.m.
(There is an internal appeals board and people are given an interview)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 07:05 p.m.
But we'll go into detail later
cabotcabot
You don’t want these people reinstated if the scheme is found unconstitutional?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:06 p.m.
Declaratory relief is the floor
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:06 p.m.
Injunctive relief is the ceiling(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:06 p.m.
That's up to you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:06 p.m.
I don't want an injunction restating them
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 07:06 p.m.
They'd be entitled to a hearing anyway
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 07:07 p.m.
Not reinstatement
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 07:07 p.m.
Did they get a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:07 p.m.
"Enter injunctive relief prohibiting the Mayower National Guard and any state actor
from issuing further dishonorable discharges under the current statutory framework
unless and until it is amended to comply with the requirements of due process;"

"Order the immediate reversal of all dishonorable discharges issued pursuant to 4
M.S.C. 7 §§ 1301-1304;"

"Order the state to implement and enforce procedural safeguards, at a minimum,
advance written notice, an opportunity to respond, and access to a neutral
decisionmaker, before any future dishonorable discharge is issued; and"
cabotcabot
Did they get a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:07 p.m.
No they did not
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:07 p.m.
Nor notice
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:07 p.m.
That's what is alleged
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:07 p.m.
Our Mr. DauuX will likely say that they had the chance to request a hearing before the appeals board
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:07 p.m.
But that is not adequete pre-deprivation process
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:08 p.m.
That is post-deprivation and insufficient
cabotcabot
Did they get a hearing
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 07:08 p.m.
I'll get a list from ACID of those who have been discharged and those who did receive a hearing in the next few days
meowiittenmeowiitten
Our Mr. DauuX will likely say that they had the chance to request a hearing before the appeals board
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 07:08 p.m.
No that's not what I mean
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:08 p.m.
Well if ACID says those people received a hearing then they will have to back it up with transcripts
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 07:09 p.m.
We'll see how the thing goes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:09 p.m.
And an interview alone is generally inadequate
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:09 p.m.
In fact, federal law would require a court martial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:10 p.m.
However, I recognize that federal law is only persuasive here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:10 p.m.
But nonetheless, court martial is required federally because of the due process clause(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:10 p.m.
And the protections that attach to soldiers(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:10 p.m.
And the consequences that are inherent in a dishonorable discharge
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:45 p.m.
COLUMBIAN ALLIANCE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT MAYFLOWER NATIONAL GUARD
@cabot @DauuX
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:49 p.m.
PROPOSED ORDER
@cabot @DauuX
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 07:51 p.m.
Thank you, 24 hours for response @DauuX
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 07:52 p.m.
@meowiitten Is this request for preliminary injunction or TRO
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 07:53 p.m.
Is Member A currently applying anywhere
cabotcabot
Thank you, 24 hours for response @DauuX
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-16 07:53 p.m.
Mhm
cabotcabot
@meowiitten Is this request for preliminary injunction or TRO
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:53 p.m.
Preliminary injunction since we’re on a preliminary injunction briefing schedule
✅1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 07:56 p.m.
Do you guys VC, would be good to make a community event in main server out of a court hearing soon especially in a case with such important ramifications like this @meowiitten @DauuX or other litigators in your respective teams
cabot
cabot 2025-06-16 07:56 p.m.
If not that is fine
cabotcabot
Do you guys VC, would be good to make a community event in main server out of a court hearing soon especially in a case with such important ramifications like this <@69184334297523...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 07:57 p.m.
I do VC
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 08:01 p.m.
@DauuX
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 08:16 p.m.
Maybe @dero Would be open to it
meowiittenmeowiitten
Maybe @dero Would be open to it
dero
dero 2025-06-16 08:23 p.m.
I vc but i told dauux he could represent the MNG here
cabotcabot
Do you guys VC, would be good to make a community event in main server out of a court hearing soon especially in a case with such important ramifications like this <@69184334297523...
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 09:10 a.m.
Not really, no. It'd be difficult for me to schedule it as I'm European
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 09:10 a.m.
And don't fancy saying legal gibberish late at night
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 10:43 a.m.
Well I'm British as well so it would be a proportionate time
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 10:44 a.m.
Anyway, we will move on then
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 12:05 p.m.
@cabot Could I possibly have 24 hours more (so a total of 48 hours) to respond to the PI motion
DauuXDauuX
@cabot Could I possibly have 24 hours more (so a total of 48 hours) to respond to the PI motion
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 12:06 p.m.
Sure
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 12:06 p.m.
Thank you very much
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 02:13 p.m.
@meowiitten Just to be clear
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 02:14 p.m.
Member A was fired as a result of misconduct investigation, and not because of like a game ban?
DauuXDauuX
Member A was fired as a result of misconduct investigation, and not because of like a game ban?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 02:14 p.m.
Yes
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 02:14 p.m.
That's curious. Very curious.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:17 p.m.
@meowiitten Are you sure you went to DOJ for arbitration?
DauuXDauuX
@meowiitten Are you sure you went to DOJ for arbitration?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:18 p.m.
Arbitration has been shut down
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:18 p.m.
Unnecessary
meowiittenmeowiitten
Arbitration has been shut down
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:18 p.m.
I know that
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:19 p.m.
But the complaint says you did, so I'm assuming you did
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:19 p.m.
No i'm saying THEY went to arbitration
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:19 p.m.
Not me
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:19 p.m.
Member A went to arbitration
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:19 p.m.
Well I shouldn't phrase it like that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:19 p.m.
It wasn't really arbitration
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:19 p.m.
I think it was a GOA ticket
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:20 p.m.
Like where they can vacate an action
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:20 p.m.
I see, I see
singhski
singhski 2025-06-17 04:20 p.m.
Dr Singhski.
DauuXDauuX
Member A went to arbitration
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:23 p.m.
Line 11 should probably be removed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:24 p.m.
If I end up amending
meowiittenmeowiitten
Line 11 should probably be removed
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:25 p.m.
Why?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:27 p.m.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:27 p.m.
@DauuX Line 11 removed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:27 p.m.
Remember for your answer
meowiittenmeowiitten
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:28 p.m.
so line 11 was a lie?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:29 p.m.
or what was wrong with it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:29 p.m.
It wasn't relevant to Member A
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:30 p.m.
Curious, very curious..
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:36 p.m.
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
@DauuX @cabot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:36 p.m.
Revised to include "one or more members"
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:36 p.m.
In line 4
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:36 p.m.
We now have 3 members we bring this on behalf of, but Member A in particular
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:37 p.m.
All of them within the last 30 days?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:37 p.m.
Member A is within the SOL
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:38 p.m.
Members B and C are not but they were not afforded the due process protections alleged
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:38 p.m.
@cabot In regard to this, I have confidential declarations I can give to you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:38 p.m.
I will redact their true names
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:38 p.m.
And put them on the record
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:38 p.m.
But you will get the true copy
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:38 p.m.
I'm sorry but we can't argue standing here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:38 p.m.
With their actual names
meowiittenmeowiitten
Members B and C are not but they were not afforded the due process protections alleged
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:39 p.m.
So they can't bring their claims
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:39 p.m.
They're incorporated by reference
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:39 p.m.
it's pattern and practice
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:39 p.m.
For our relief
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:39 p.m.
Systemic deprivation
cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:40 p.m.
3 people hardly make up a systemic deprivation
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:40 p.m.
Wild conjecture
meowiittenmeowiitten
@cabot In regard to this, I have confidential declarations I can give to you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:40 p.m.
@cabot Would you like this?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:40 p.m.
What is the issue here
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:40 p.m.
Also upload to website when you get the time
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:40 p.m.
He's saying someone can't demonstrate a pattern and practice of deprivation if the past people who were deprived are beyond SOL
cabotcabot
What is the issue here
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:40 p.m.
The issue is that I've got a list of all people discharged within the last 30 days
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:41 p.m.
Its empirical data(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:41 p.m.
and a list of people who went to DOJ with their discharges
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:41 p.m.
There's just one person and they were fired for being permanently banned
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:41 p.m.
Sado what was the issue with providing these people's names again
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:42 p.m.
Retaliation—to be specific, if the relief in this case is granted, then they will more likely than not be sat before the MNG for a hearing. How does one expect fair process if they're forever known as "the guys who brought the lawsuit"? Also, we're alleging stigma-plus deprivations, so the burden on them is far greater than a simple property interest deprivation(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:43 p.m.
Also if I disclose the identities of my members, then that would put my Bar license in jeopardy
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:43 p.m.
The Guard could just give them a name-clearing hearing
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:43 p.m.
But they aren't entitled to reversal of the action
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:43 p.m.
That would be unethical because I promised that I would keep the identities of my members confidential, which is our association's prerogative under NAACP v. Alabama(edited)
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:44 p.m.
I went to bed last night and I skimmed the NAACP case you referred to and I think it's distinguishable here is it not?

The members aren't being subpoenaed here nor are they being pursued by the state to enforce retribution (that was what the state was doing in the NAACP case).

I mean all giving the names here does is allow them to verify their records and comply with their obligations for fervour and disclosure as officers of the court. And I think it was mentioned earlier that retaliation is quite hard to reconcile that if they're already fired. -- Just read the sigma message you posted.
(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:45 p.m.
I do not have access to transcripts, I must request them from ACID. I've already received a huge favour by having ACID evalaute every dishonourable discharge within the last 30 days
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:45 p.m.
What about disclosing the names to counsel so he can actually prepare a valid defense? Oh Dauux is JAG right?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:45 p.m.
Perhaps but he is an extension of the MNG
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:45 p.m.
And we've already verified these are real people
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:45 p.m.
I'm willing to give redacted declarations to him
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:46 p.m.
Of all 3 people
cabotcabot
What about disclosing the names to counsel so he can actually prepare a valid defense? Oh Dauux is JAG right?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:46 p.m.
I'm a Senior Judge Advocate, not the first-in-command
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:46 p.m.
I'm effectively 2nd
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:46 p.m.
I don't want the names of members of your organisation, I frankly don't care. But I need to know who is suing us to comply with any disclosures
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:47 p.m.
You are being sued by CAFER
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:47 p.m.
Not by them
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:47 p.m.
The written affidavit from ACID confirms that people do get hearings and notices, aside some exceptions
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:47 p.m.
Has CAFER suffered any harm?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:47 p.m.
Associational standing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:48 p.m.
Member A is not a named party, he's not seeking individualized compensatory relief, he is not testifying, and he is not directly challenging the facts of his discharge(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:48 p.m.
So how do you intend to meet your burden
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:48 p.m.
If this were a public interest suit I'd maybe be more sympathetic and relax associational standing grounds but you're naming specific individuals who've been harmed individually and although you're representing them, how can the defense comply with their disclosure obligations if they don't know who is suing them?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:48 p.m.
This is a public interest suit
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:49 p.m.
You allege we follow some form of scheme where there is no notice and no hearing
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:49 p.m.
That's false
DauuXDauuX
You allege we follow some form of scheme where there is no notice and no hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:49 p.m.
You do?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:49 p.m.
Has that happened in every case? I don't know
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:49 p.m.
We have 3 people who declared
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:49 p.m.
We have 3 affidavits
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:49 p.m.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:49 p.m.
I've got one
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:50 p.m.
An interview is NOT a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:50 p.m.
An interview can only be used against them
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:50 p.m.
That is categorically impermissible
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:50 p.m.
No...?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:50 p.m.
So what do you consider a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:51 p.m.
Sitting before a judge advocate, in the case of a dishonorable discharge. That's what happens in the real U.S. military
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:51 p.m.
It is one of the most severe forms of punishment
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:51 p.m.
But this isn't the U.S. military
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:51 p.m.
I agree some stuff could be done to make it better
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:51 p.m.
The same protections apply
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:51 p.m.
Does DD limit future job opportunities
cabotcabot
Does DD limit future job opportunities
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:51 p.m.
yes
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:52 p.m.
Through tangible things or stigma plus
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:52 p.m.
They're barred from future employment in the MNG
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:52 p.m.
For a period of time
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:52 p.m.
And they are, often times, unable to seek employment elsewhere in the public sector
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:52 p.m.
Is Member A employed anywhere else?
✅1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:52 p.m.
And they didn't get a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:52 p.m.
cabotcabot
And they didn't get a hearing
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:52 p.m.
Depends what is considered a hearing
cabotcabot
And they didn't get a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:52 p.m.
No. I have affidavits of this for all 3 people. Like I said
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:53 p.m.
Well isn't hearing quite objective
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:53 p.m.
😭1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:53 p.m.
An impartial decision maker and the opportunity to make representations in your defense(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:53 p.m.
ACID reviews a report, sends them a notice, asks them to come and say why they did what they did
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:53 p.m.
ACID is not impartial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:53 p.m.
They conducted the investigation themselves
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:53 p.m.
By your logic no one is
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:53 p.m.
Are they criminal investigators?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:53 p.m.
Yes
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
Uh
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
What the helly
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
ACID stands for Army Criminal Investigations Division
😭1
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
The case is then reviewed by ACID Command
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
Who are?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
who does not participate in the investigation
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
Criminal investigators
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
Do you guys not have Judge Advocates and court martials going
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
I thought the inaugural statute had this in it
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
We do not have court martials
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
It did not
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
I see
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:54 p.m.
Does any dept have judges?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:55 p.m.
What about some sort of oversight board that evaluates this stuff
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:55 p.m.
Because we had a SCOM case and I'm pretty sure we discussed this in depth
cabotcabot
What about some sort of oversight board that evaluates this stuff
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:55 p.m.
You can appeal punishments internally
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:55 p.m.
And there was some sort of board
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:55 p.m.
The SCOM case says you have to get them through the board
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:55 p.m.
before court review
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:55 p.m.
and Member A did not
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:55 p.m.
I see
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:55 p.m.
@meowiitten @cabot Response to PI motion
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:56 p.m.
Was this part of the arbitration regime or separate
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:56 p.m.
But it covers some of this
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:56 p.m.
Ty
cabotcabot
Was this part of the arbitration regime or separate
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:56 p.m.
It is set up internally
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:56 p.m.
not part of DOJ
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:57 p.m.
In Mindes v. Seaman, the Fifth Circuit reached the “conclusion that a court should not review internal military affairs in the absence of (a) an allegation of the deprivation of a constitutional right ..."
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:57 p.m.
You can stop right after that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:58 p.m.
@cabot If you need those affidavits I can provide them to you if it would assist your judgment
meowiittenmeowiitten
You can stop right after that
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:58 p.m.
Did you miss the part where SCOM relies on Mindes
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:58 p.m.
It quite literally quotes it in the opinion and adopts the rule
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:59 p.m.
What are we alleging?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:59 p.m.
Deprivation of a constitutional right
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:59 p.m.
So yes, I gladly incorporate Mindes
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:59 p.m.
You need to exhaust internal appeals
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:59 p.m.
Doubtful
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 04:59 p.m.
Were these people told that there existed a mechanism of appeal?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:59 p.m.
Heinously doubtful
cabotcabot
Were these people told that there existed a mechanism of appeal?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 04:59 p.m.
It's covered in policy
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 04:59 p.m.
You cannot dishonorably discharge someone, bar them from employment, ruin their future job prospects, and THEN say "you may appeal"
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:00 p.m.
Before a board of criminal investigators
😭1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:00 p.m.
Are they examined on this policy to show they've read it or is it a 50 page doc of policies that read like T&Cs
cabotcabot
Are they examined on this policy to show they've read it or is it a 50 page doc of policies that read like T&Cs
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:00 p.m.
Everyone undergoing BCT is examined on policy
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:00 p.m.
BCT is the entrance academy
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:00 p.m.
Who would they appeal before?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:00 p.m.
ACID command?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:00 p.m.
For dishonourable discharges, Command Group
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:01 p.m.
And who sits on this
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:02 p.m.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:02 p.m.
+ MP Brigade CO
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:03 p.m.
I see
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:03 p.m.
And what is the process, is it a hearing?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:03 p.m.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:03 p.m.
This is all from the policy
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:04 p.m.
That's not adversarial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:06 p.m.
Also, I've been told by Member C that all he had to do to appeal was fill out a Google Form (he was never brought before the appeals panel), and then they returned it with a summary denial like he was applying to McDonalds @cabot(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:07 p.m.
If you are looking to appeal disciplinary action that has been taken against you in the guard, fill out this form to request an appeal.

Your appeal will be reviewed by Command Group who will take a vote on its merits. The point of contact for all appeals is Command Group.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:07 p.m.
Here is the appeal form
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:07 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:08 p.m.
This is your one shot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:08 p.m.
You don't get to go before the board
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:08 p.m.
Or call witnesses in your favor
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:08 p.m.
Or see the bulk of the other side's evidence
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:08 p.m.
That's interesting really
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:10 p.m.
As the form is not used anymore iirc
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:10 p.m.
So then there's no point of contact
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:10 p.m.
That's not what it means :🤣:
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:10 p.m.
It just means there's another way
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:10 p.m.
Which is?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:10 p.m.
Burden's on you!
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:11 p.m.
@cabot Ok this is ridiculous
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:11 p.m.
Agreed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:11 p.m.
That defeats your point about the appeals board as a requisite to exhaustion then
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:11 p.m.
You just told me that form isn't used anymore
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:11 p.m.
And that's the only public point of contact
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:11 p.m.
Not really
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:11 p.m.
But okay
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:11 p.m.
So where is the other one???
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:12 p.m.
What's the other way?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:12 p.m.
Internally there's another way
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:12 p.m.
That is?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:12 p.m.
Perhaps the form is for external appeals
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:12 p.m.
I can check but it'll take a moment
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:15 p.m.
Meanwhile the Court could decide whether internal appeals were exhausted and whether the case can proceed @cabot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:27 p.m.
@cabot Would the declarations of the 3 members assist you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:27 p.m.
Or should I not bother
meowiittenmeowiitten
@cabot Would the declarations of the 3 members assist you
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:30 p.m.
Declarations which cannot be verified and cross-examined..
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:30 p.m.
They will be verified by him
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:30 p.m.
He will know their true names
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:30 p.m.
Okay but he can't verify whether they had a hearing
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:31 p.m.
or received a notice of the charges against them
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:31 p.m.
Yes, because you already let us know no one did
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:31 p.m.
You beat that point to death
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:31 p.m.
Actually there's evidence to the contrary
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:31 p.m.
What would the declarations contain
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:31 p.m.
What they've gone through?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:32 p.m.
A systemic oppresion, deprivation of rights, no due process, no ability to defend themselves, no knowledge of the charges against them
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:32 p.m.
I think we can presume that
cabotcabot
What they've gone through?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:32 p.m.
Yes. They won't be submitted for the purposes of discovery (yet) but they can be considered attachments to my motion
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:33 p.m.
It'll confirm what we already know that
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:33 p.m.
What's the purpose of the PI
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:33 p.m.
Also attacking the proposed order wasn't necessary considering it's simply a proposed order and has nothing to do with the merits of the motion itself
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:34 p.m.
It has no bearing on the motion itself
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:34 p.m.
I know
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:34 p.m.
But it emphasises that your injunction would result in that nonsense
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:34 p.m.
What I want, in truth, is just a pause and process(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:34 p.m.
Its such a beautiful phrase
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:34 p.m.
Pause and process
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:35 p.m.
Is your Member A mentioned in the affidavit I'd sent?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:35 p.m.
I won't confirm or deny that
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:35 p.m.
Well if he's not then you have no standing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:35 p.m.
Lets just say that the judge knows
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:35 p.m.
If he is, then your complaint is at least partially untrue
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:36 p.m.
Why do you call it an interview/hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:36 p.m.
Its not a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:36 p.m.
It can't be both
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:36 p.m.
Its one or the other
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:36 p.m.
We could call it a tea party for all that matters
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:36 p.m.
Its purpose is important, not the name itself
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:38 p.m.
What an asinine thing to say
meowiittenmeowiitten
Like where they can vacate an action
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:39 p.m.
Yeah I've got that username
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:40 p.m.
So what are you seeking as relief
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:40 p.m.
You don't want reinstatement right
cabotcabot
You don't want reinstatement right
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:40 p.m.
No
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:41 p.m.
I do not want to force them to reinstate them(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:41 p.m.
What I want is process
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:41 p.m.
However that may be done? I don’t know
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:41 p.m.
Frankly that’s for you to decide
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:41 p.m.
The remedy itself is an oddity
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:41 p.m.
But we all know what needs to be done
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:42 p.m.
Well I don't mind raising the standards
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:42 p.m.
What I propose is pausing further discharges under the one-sided ACID investigatory framework
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:42 p.m.
But you're asking the Court to presume that every single one of these DDs was wrong
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:43 p.m.
And then requiring court martial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:43 p.m.
Or some kind of adversarial process
meowiittenmeowiitten
What I propose is pausing further discharges under the one-sided ACID investigatory framework
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:43 p.m.
@cabot This is what I think
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:43 p.m.
As for my members
meowiittenmeowiitten
And then requiring court martial
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:43 p.m.
Due Process does not require an almost-trial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:44 p.m.
With stigma-plus deprivation it certainly does
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:44 p.m.
not really
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:44 p.m.
Wild conjecture and contrarianism
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:44 p.m.
thank you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:49 p.m.
@cabot I’ll add that, at least in real life, dishonorable discharge is only available for felonies or desertion and it is imposed as result of a court-martial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:51 p.m.
But here’s its imposed administratively and treated like a conviction
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 05:52 p.m.
I see what you mean
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:53 p.m.
"[T]he pretermination hearing need not definitively resolve the propriety of the discharge. It should be an initial check against mistaken decisions -- essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action." Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 545–546 (1985)

"The essential requirements of due process, and all that respondents seek or the Court of Appeals required, are notice and an opportunity to respond. The opportunity to present reasons, either in person or in writing, why proposed action should not be taken is a fundamental due process requirement. The tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story. To require more than this prior to termination would intrude to an unwarranted extent on the government's interest in quickly removing an unsatisfactory employee." Id., at 546 (internal quotation marks omitted).
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:54 p.m.
Internal quotations and citations, not just the marks*
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:56 p.m.
"[T]he ordinary principle, established by our decisions, [is] that something less than an evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 343 (1976)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:57 p.m.
Do you think an interview is sufficient for an employment death sentence?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:57 p.m.
It doesn’t just carry separation with the MNG
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:57 p.m.
You’re barred from the MNG for four months, and god knows no other agency wants you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:58 p.m.
It’s mandated in statute that public agencies assess whether or not you have a dishonorable discharge
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:58 p.m.
As part of a background check
meowiittenmeowiitten
Do you think an interview is sufficient for an employment death sentence?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 05:58 p.m.
Is Member A employed anywhere rn
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:59 p.m.
No
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 05:59 p.m.
You ruined that
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-17 06:00 p.m.
Did he apply anywhere
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:01 p.m.
Yes, but I’d have to confirm with him where
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-17 06:01 p.m.
@cabot When can we expect a ruling?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-17 06:03 p.m.
Likely tomorrow
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 10:39 a.m.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 10:40 a.m.
We're quite literally unable to deny or admit like over half of the complaint
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 11:39 a.m.
@meowiitten
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 11:39 a.m.
This is an issue isn't it
cabotcabot
This is an issue isn't it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 11:42 a.m.
Not really true what he’s saying
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 11:42 a.m.
If he doesn’t have enough information to admit or deny then it’s a denial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 11:42 a.m.
This is a case that more likely than not will not go to trial anyway
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 11:43 a.m.
So his answer isn’t that important
meowiittenmeowiitten
This is a case that more likely than not will not go to trial anyway
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 11:45 a.m.
Since this is one of 99% legal issues
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 12:45 p.m.
@cabot Anyways do you think the PI will still be out today? We can resolve any issue with the answer later
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 12:46 p.m.
Yep will be out when I get back from my run
meowiittenmeowiitten
This is a case that more likely than not will not go to trial anyway
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:14 p.m.
It will
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:15 p.m.
There are material disputes over the facts
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:16 p.m.
Firstly your Member A's account is... curious
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:17 p.m.
And you can't meet your burden without some evidence
DauuXDauuX
There are material disputes over the facts
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:17 p.m.
Which is why discovery will prove there is no possible material dispute
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:17 p.m.
Simply saying there is one does not create a dispute
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:17 p.m.
Simply denying does not create a dispute
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:17 p.m.
Even in your answer
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:18 p.m.
Well I've got an affidavit saying that the people get a notice of charges
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:18 p.m.
You say they don't
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:18 p.m.
And this is unsupported by anything right now
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:18 p.m.
No that’s not what I contested
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:18 p.m.
I contested they get notice AFTER deprivation
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:18 p.m.
Which is insufficient
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:18 p.m.
And the pre-deprivation processes are insufficient
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:19 p.m.
That's untrue
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:19 p.m.
They get a notice prior to it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:19 p.m.
Like I said I’d be willing to do a VC hearing over this
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:19 p.m.
Unless they get banned or desert, but that's irrelevant
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:19 p.m.
See the thing is you can say anything but without evidence it's meaningless
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:20 p.m.
Not to mention the non-exhaustion
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:20 p.m.
The process is this:
1. ACID investigates
2. ACID finds wrongdoing
3. ACID sends a DD document to the dischargee
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:21 p.m.
They are already deprived when they get notice
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:21 p.m.
That's conjecture
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:21 p.m.
Something you were very vocal about
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:21 p.m.
Well I think you want their identities so you can forward it to your bosses quite frankly
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:21 p.m.
How are they supposed to get a fair hearing
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:22 p.m.
I mean as of now "my bosses" can just not give anyone a fair hearing who was DD'ed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:22 p.m.
Isn’t that what this case is about
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:22 p.m.
They aren't entitled to reinstatement, just a name clearing hearing. That won't get them their jobs back
meowiittenmeowiitten
Isn’t that what this case is about
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:22 p.m.
I mean that even if you win the case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:23 p.m.
Well to restore status quo ante reversal and hearings would be the only sufficient remedy at law
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:23 p.m.
Anything else would be insufficient
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:23 p.m.
You're not entitled to reversal of the action
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:23 p.m.
That’s not up to you
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:23 p.m.
That’s the amazing part
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:23 p.m.
Nor is it up to me
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:24 p.m.
In this case, the respondent has alleged the existence of rules and understandings, promulgated and fostered by state officials, that may justify his legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment absent "sufficient cause." We disagree with the Court of Appeals insofar as it held that a mere subjective "expectancy" is protected by procedural due process, but we agree that the respondent must be given an opportunity to prove the legitimacy of his claim of such entitlement in light of "the policies and practices of the institution." 430 F.2d at 943. Proof of such a property interest would not, of course, entitle him to reinstatement. But such proof would obligate college officials to grant a hearing at his request, where he could be informed of the grounds for his nonretention and challenge their sufficiency.
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 602–603 (1972) (emphasis added)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:25 p.m.
That’s not reinstatement
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:25 p.m.
That’s reversal of the DD and then giving them a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:25 p.m.
Administrative hold
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:25 p.m.
Nonetheless I am still unsure about SoL
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:25 p.m.
As I know your actual client is not within the SoL
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:25 p.m.
I will disclose the identity of Member A if you consent to a protective order
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:26 p.m.
If not then I will not
meowiittenmeowiitten
That’s reversal of the DD and then giving them a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:32 p.m.
"But such proof would obligate college officials to grant a hearing at his request, where he could be informed of the grounds for his nonretention and challenge their sufficiency."
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:32 p.m.
To your point
meowiittenmeowiitten
"But such proof would obligate college officials to grant a hearing at his request, where he could be informed of the grounds for his nonretention and challenge their sufficiency."
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:36 p.m.
Yeah, they get a hearing, not a reversal
krm
krm 2025-06-18 01:36 p.m.
Ijbol
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:36 p.m.
A possible reversal if the hearing board is satisfied
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:37 p.m.
Whatever you want to call it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:37 p.m.
Its status quo ante, meaning an administrative hold until they are afforded a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:37 p.m.
Unless they are outside the jurisdiction of CC(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:37 p.m.
The discharge is reversed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:37 p.m.
Otherwise that would defeat the purpose of the hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:38 p.m.
Because the hearing would be postdeprivation
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:38 p.m.
And in these cases, the hearing must be predeprivation
krm
krm 2025-06-18 01:38 p.m.
Vice Chancellor here.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:39 p.m.
@krm
krm
krm 2025-06-18 01:39 p.m.
Yes?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:44 p.m.
@cabot I've just found out that the interview afforded to Member A was a mirandized interview
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:44 p.m.
Like it was police interrogation by ACID
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:44 p.m.
Lollllll
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:44 p.m.
He was in handcuffs and detained at the time
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:44 p.m.
"Interview/hearing"
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:51 p.m.
So he was given an interview...?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:51 p.m.
where you said he did not get one at all?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:51 p.m.
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:51 p.m.
This is exactly what I needed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:51 p.m.
My case is proven
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:52 p.m.
The only process he got was a POLICE INTERROGATION LOLLLLLLLLLL(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:52 p.m.
THAT WAS HIS HEARING
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:52 p.m.
I AM LAUGHING SO HARD LOLLLL
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:52 p.m.
Let me ask Member A if he wants this disclosed because this is beyond hilarious
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 01:52 p.m.
Well that'd allow me to check whether this is true
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 01:55 p.m.
Let me prepare these
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:28 p.m.
@DauuX Once you submit your answer I can disclose
meowiittenmeowiitten
@DauuX Once you submit your answer I can disclose
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:29 p.m.
What answer
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:29 p.m.
Your answer to the complaint
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:29 p.m.
I can't answer the complaint when it focuses on injuries to some person I don't know
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:29 p.m.
Liar liar
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:30 p.m.
You can just put you don't have enough knowledge
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:30 p.m.
Or you can default
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:30 p.m.
Up to you
meowiittenmeowiitten
You can just put you don't have enough knowledge
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:30 p.m.
For all of the complaint?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:30 p.m.
That'd be funny
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:30 p.m.
Well you'd be a horrible lawyer if you did that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:30 p.m.
The causes of action, parties, and jurisdiction don't require knowledge
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:31 p.m.
Do you not know how to file an answer?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:31 p.m.
You can look on courtlistener for examples
meowiittenmeowiitten
The causes of action, parties, and jurisdiction don't require knowledge
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:31 p.m.
Jurisdiction does
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:32 p.m.
You don't make legal arguments in your answer
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:32 p.m.
I'm not going to go over this with you, I'll wait for Cabot to rule and we'll proceed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:32 p.m.
If that's what you're trying to do
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:32 p.m.
I know what to do, thanks
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:32 p.m.
Its literally just Admit, Deny, Not Enough Knowledge (Denial), Legal Conclusion Not Requiring Answer
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:32 p.m.
There's nothing else
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:32 p.m.
Literally nothing else
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:32 p.m.
And then affirmative defenses, possibly
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:32 p.m.
Look, I know what I have to do and how to do it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:33 p.m.
Clearly you don't if you can't file an answer
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:33 p.m.
I've got like 4 more days
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 02:34 p.m.
I intend to take my time
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:38 p.m.
Well if that’s the case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 02:39 p.m.
I will just go ahead and prepare my motion to expedite sj and my motion for summary judgment with exhibits(edited)
cabotcabot
I went to bed last night and I skimmed the NAACP case you referred to and I think it's distinguishable here is it not? The members aren't being subpoenaed here nor are they being...(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 04:53 p.m.
You were right about the difference compared to the NAACP case
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 04:53 p.m.
This requirement of naming the affected members has never been dispensed with in light of statistical probabilities, but only where all the members of the organization are affected by the challenged activity. See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 459 (1958) (all organization members affected by release of membership lists).
Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 498–499 (2009) (emphasis in the original)
(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 04:54 p.m.
Without naming and identifying a person, Plaintiff cannot maintain standing on behalf of its member(s). I won't make an entire pleading on that, as it could be easily remedied by simply sharing that name
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 04:59 p.m.
We did name a person
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 04:59 p.m.
Member A
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 04:59 p.m.
His identity will soon be disclosed
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:09 p.m.
You have no standing without a name
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:09 p.m.
and no basis to hide it
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:12 p.m.
I agree
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:12 p.m.
Disclosure of the individuals named in the complaint should be made in an amended complaint within 24 hours @meowiitten
cabotcabot
Disclosure of the individuals named in the complaint should be made in an amended complaint within 24 hours @meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:14 p.m.
I don't know why that's necessary
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:14 p.m.
I am representing 3 different interests, 1 such interest is within the SOL so his claim is brought
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:14 p.m.
And the association brings it on his behalf
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:14 p.m.
I can name countless suits where "Member A" as a designation is allowed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:14 p.m.
John Doe
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:14 p.m.
Jane Doe
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:14 p.m.
Jane Roe
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:14 p.m.
Are these plaintiffs?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:15 p.m.
Or defendants?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:15 p.m.
Yes, Plaintiffs
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:15 p.m.
Are you familiar with Roe v. Wade, lol?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:15 p.m.
She proceeded under a pseudonym
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:15 p.m.
Jane Roe
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:15 p.m.
Yes the redaction usually occurs and functions as a 'gag' on the press or public circulation of the name
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:15 p.m.
I am not familiar with any cases where the state is not aware who they are
cabotcabot
I am not familiar with any cases where the state is not aware who they are
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:16 p.m.
He will be made aware
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:16 p.m.
I literally have a declaration I'm about t osend
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:16 p.m.
You've got no standing without the name
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:16 p.m.
It's simple really
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:16 p.m.
Lmfao this guy
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:16 p.m.
We can notify counsel privately if that is what you want to do and refer to them under their pseudonyms here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:16 p.m.
Yes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:16 p.m.
That is what I will do
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:16 p.m.
Let us do that then
cabotcabot
We can notify counsel privately if that is what you want to do and refer to them under their pseudonyms here
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:17 p.m.
It serves no purpose though?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:17 p.m.
Unless you want me to keep that name to myself and not share it with my superiors
cabotcabot
We can notify counsel privately if that is what you want to do and refer to them under their pseudonyms here
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:17 p.m.
It was just sent to him
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:17 p.m.
Which I inevitably will have to do when getting transcripts/other documents
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:18 p.m.
Okay this Member A
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:18 p.m.
Well if you need to talk to your superiors strictly in relation to seeking evidence for the matter that is fine whilst circulating their name between them
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:19 p.m.
But no publication of this name or surplusage communications about the name
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:19 p.m.
You have an obligation and duty as an officer of the court to effectively be tight lipped
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:19 p.m.
His case is specific
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:20 p.m.
Remind me again @meowiitten
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:20 p.m.
Is only Member A in the SOL
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:20 p.m.
Or are the other situated persons also in SOL
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:20 p.m.
Yes but the other two members are brought for purposes of a showing of systemic effects
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:20 p.m.
And this is 100% allowed
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:20 p.m.
Member A is within the SOL
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:20 p.m.
But his case is quite peculiar
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:21 p.m.
Its like how race-based admissions cases are allowed to bring up data from years and years ago even if people who were affected then don't have claims now
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:22 p.m.
Anyways I will be filing a motion for expedited summary judgment which the court can choose to delay or review at its discretion
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:22 p.m.
It will have 3 attached declarations
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:22 p.m.
May I briefly explain what's unusual about Member A's case? @meowiitten @cabot
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:23 p.m.
I'm fine with doing it in a GC or something, to limit the details known to the public
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:23 p.m.
you can dm me it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 05:23 p.m.
Or gc
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 05:23 p.m.
Sure we can do GC
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 05:23 p.m.
I've sent you a friend request
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:16 p.m.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
@cabot @DauuX
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:16 p.m.
Member A gave me permission to use his true name
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:16 p.m.
So its fine now @DauuX
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:18 p.m.
Thank you
cabotcabot
Yes the redaction usually occurs and functions as a 'gag' on the press or public circulation of the name
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:23 p.m.
Also I am Member A in a lawsuit irl
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:23 p.m.
Lol
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:24 p.m.
And the opposing counsel doesn’t know my identity
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:24 p.m.
That’s how I know this is possible
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 07:25 p.m.
Member A was a decorated individual with spotless record :😭: :😭:
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 07:25 p.m.
Dear God he was a private
meowiittenmeowiitten
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SUMMARY JUDGMENT @cabot @DauuX
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 07:26 p.m.
@cabot 48 hours?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 07:27 p.m.
Also SJ requires a showing of no material disputes of facts :😬:
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:29 p.m.
You should consult the standard on summary judgment
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:29 p.m.
Even saying “we disagree with X wholeheartedly” isn’t a dispute
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:29 p.m.
The record of evidence shows that there is no possible dispute(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:30 p.m.
They were never afforded pre-deprivation hearings
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:34 p.m.
It’s not a genuine material dispute if the record shows that no constitutionally adequate hearing occurred
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:35 p.m.
I see
DauuXDauuX
@cabot 48 hours?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:36 p.m.
Sure
cabotcabot
I see
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:41 p.m.
Are you gonna hold off on the PI ruling
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:54 p.m.
When do we want to schedule it
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:54 p.m.
What matters do I even have to decide it's been lost in the text
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:54 p.m.
Did I have an MTD and PI
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:55 p.m.
to rule on
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:55 p.m.
A PI and an opposition brief
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:55 p.m.
No no MTD
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:55 p.m.
And now you have an MSJ
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:55 p.m.
Oh I see
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:55 p.m.
If I grant MSJ then it would seem redundant to schedule a PI hearing
cabotcabot
If I grant MSJ then it would seem redundant to schedule a PI hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:56 p.m.
Very true
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 07:56 p.m.
@cabot Here
cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 07:57 p.m.
Very helpful thank you
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:00 p.m.
Are you fine with an oral MTD based on the lack of exhaustion as required by Zrihem v. TDark99 @cabot
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:00 p.m.
I expect it to be denied hence oral
DauuXDauuX
Are you fine with an oral MTD based on the lack of exhaustion as required by Zrihem v. TDark99 @cabot
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 08:01 p.m.
Yep sure
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:01 p.m.
As was noted in our conversation that case was made without the context of the Public Servants Act
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:01 p.m.
But either way
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 08:02 p.m.
What does the PSA change
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 08:02 p.m.
I remember being told about PSA once
meowiittenmeowiitten
As was noted in our conversation that case was made without the context of the Public Servants Act
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:02 p.m.
Yes, which does not mean any changes..?
cabotcabot
What does the PSA change
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:02 p.m.
let me go find the bill
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:02 p.m.
Lack of exhaustion of internal corrective measures is separate
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:02 p.m.
And mandated in the Mindes standard
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:03 p.m.
Adopting Mindes was so wack dude
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:03 p.m.
Fifth Circuit as binding precedent lol
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:03 p.m.
Blame shah
😭1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 08:03 p.m.
Fuck you retard @krm
DauuXDauuX
Lack of exhaustion of internal corrective measures is separate
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:05 p.m.
Can we get a definition or internal corrective measures
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:05 p.m.
of*
meowiittenmeowiitten
Can we get a definition or internal corrective measures
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:05 p.m.
SCOM refers specifically to the appeals board
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:05 p.m.
So that'd be it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:06 p.m.
Did SCOM take notice of pre-deprivation process
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:06 p.m.
Or only post-deprivation
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:06 p.m.
The case was that there was zero pre-deprivation
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:06 p.m.
And here we are saying there must be
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:06 p.m.
And that post- wasn't sought
meowiittenmeowiitten
And here we are saying there must be
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:06 p.m.
Yeah, that was the argument in SCOM too
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:07 p.m.
Alright so
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:07 p.m.
Member A said to me
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:07 p.m.
"I tried to appeal but they said nothing"
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:07 p.m.
I will find out what that means
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:07 p.m.
That is not what you had alleged...?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:07 p.m.
Let me talk boy
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:07 p.m.
You said he made a claim to DOJ, which seems untrue, now this....
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:08 p.m.
We don't need the little ellipses with the question mark
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:08 p.m.
But they're so me
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:10 p.m.
@cabot Honest to god I think the intraservice corrective measures thing is kind of on par with the arbitration shenanigans and should be disregarded
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:10 p.m.
Its basically saying someone has no right to appeal their termination for any means
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:10 p.m.
Whether it be retaliatory or not
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:10 p.m.
Even if they're only seeking injunctive and declaratory relief
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:10 p.m.
Not monetary damages
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:11 p.m.
Due process rulings say post-deprivation (in the form of an appeal) is sufficient when stigma is involved
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:11 p.m.
I can find the precise ruling tmr
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:11 p.m.
No, actually the case you cited earlier, I think Perry v. Sindermann, said he wasn't entitled to reinstatement but he was entitled to a hearing at his request in relief
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:12 p.m.
A hearing before he was deprived
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:12 p.m.
Otherwise it would defeat the purpose
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:12 p.m.
@DauuX Do you contend he didn't have a property interest
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:13 p.m.
Because that's all you can take shots at if you want to say pre-deprivation doesn't apply
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:13 p.m.
Its a bit more complicated
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:13 p.m.
I didn't read Zrihem but I'm genuinely saying fuck off to it as a waste of time to analyze in this context
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:13 p.m.
(I only read Cabot's dissent)(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:14 p.m.
I'll hopefully cover this in my reply to MSJ
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:14 p.m.
Unless I die
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:14 p.m.
Actually
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:14 p.m.
Wasn't Zrihem a plurality?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:14 p.m.
So it's not binding on us either way
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:14 p.m.
Its just heavily persuasive
meowiittenmeowiitten
Wasn't Zrihem a plurality?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:16 p.m.
They announced it weirdly
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:17 p.m.
The ruling was reversed so I guess not...?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-18 08:17 p.m.
But the individual names don't add up
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:19 p.m.
Before TURNTABLE, Chief Justice, TOTORO, STICKZA,
CLARKE, CABOT, XIQAQ, KHALED, MANDATORY, and NOTABLE,
Associate Justices.

Majority (?):
1. Khaled
2. Xiqaq :🤖:
3. Mandatory :🤖:
4. Notable???

Concurring (to what extent we will never know)
1. Totoro

Dissent:
1. Cabot
2. Turntable
3. Clarke

DNP:
1. Stickza
(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:20 p.m.
4-1-3-1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:21 p.m.
So then its a plurality
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:21 p.m.
@Deleted User Whose side did you join in that case buddy
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:28 p.m.
When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, "the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds. . . ." Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 428 U. S. 169 n. 15 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)).
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:29 p.m.
@cabot Its your decision to decide whether or not to apply the Marks rule
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:29 p.m.
Isn't that a great responsibility?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:30 p.m.
@DauuX Wouldn't you be happy if you were vindicated sir
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 08:51 p.m.
How kind
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 08:51 p.m.
Yes it was a plurality
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 09:05 p.m.
Yay
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 09:05 p.m.
Our dissent comes to life here
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 09:05 p.m.
I just realised
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 09:15 p.m.
are you seeking money damages here for the guy A
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 09:15 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 09:15 p.m.
@meowiitten
cabotcabot
Click to see attachment.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 09:16 p.m.
No
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 09:16 p.m.
We can't in associational standing to an extent(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 09:16 p.m.
You can award nominal damages
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 09:16 p.m.
But not compensatory
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 09:21 p.m.
You can do whatever you want
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 10:11 p.m.
Oh yes I see what you mean
cabot
cabot 2025-06-18 10:12 p.m.
I forgot this was associational
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 10:32 a.m.
The accuracy of the third declaration is dubious
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:19 p.m.
@cabot @meowiitten Would it be possible to bring Member C, HK_M27IAR, before this Court regarding their affidavit?(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:19 p.m.
No
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:20 p.m.
You’re not entitled to confront the evidence at this stage unless you want to depose them
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:20 p.m.
Then again this seems totally irrelevant
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:20 p.m.
All I'm asking for is a chance to cross-examine
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:20 p.m.
If this is about whether or not he committed misconduct, that’s irrelevant
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:20 p.m.
Because we do not contest if he did or not
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:20 p.m.
It is not
DauuXDauuX
All I'm asking for is a chance to cross-examine
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:21 p.m.
No that’s premature at this stage
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:22 p.m.
You're saying a summary judgement is not premature
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:22 p.m.
His trial wouldn’t count as a hearing because even if it was, he was acquitted and he still retained the DD
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:22 p.m.
So you can tell me the discrepancy
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 12:22 p.m.
What’s the issue you’d want him deposed for
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:22 p.m.
I have serious concerns over the contents of the affidavit itself
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 12:23 p.m.
Such as
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:23 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 12:23 p.m.
Was he provided with these?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:23 p.m.
Elaborate then
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:24 p.m.
All these people want are hearings and notice to contest the facts presented against them(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:24 p.m.
That’s all this is
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:24 p.m.
We’re not asking for reinstatement
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:25 p.m.
It’s a very simple ask
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:25 p.m.
Now I've received a recording of Mr IHasMinionz's DMs with Member C, where he says, among others, "I am reaching out regarding a complaint where you, HK_M27IAR, have had violations alleged against you, which are listed below", which then identifies a specific part of the Code of Conduct, provides a brief explanation of the incident, and asks them to "join the Discord server below, as [he] would like to hear [HK's] version of events regarding this incident."
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:26 p.m.
And who is IHasMinionz
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:26 p.m.
A member of the ACID
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:26 p.m.
Which company or battalion is he with
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:26 p.m.
Right…
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:26 p.m.
So he was being offered a mirandized interview
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:26 p.m.
@cabot :/
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:26 p.m.
ACID is not just criminal investigators, it's also our IA
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:27 p.m.
Your notion that no notice was given is entirely false. The notion that there is no opportunity to provide one's story is also false
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:27 p.m.
The final decision on the action taken is not made by the investigator assigned to a case
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:28 p.m.
Lmfao dude when you mirandize someone which happens in these interrogations, those interviews can ONLY be used to hurt that person if they’re admitted in court. It’s in the federal rules of evidence and I’d imagine we incorporate it in this state as well
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:28 p.m.
They can very much be used to the person's benefit
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:28 p.m.
No that’s just genuinely untrue
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:28 p.m.
It’s either neutral or hurtful
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:29 p.m.
This is what is generally understood
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:29 p.m.
It informs them of potential consequences of their statements
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:29 p.m.
That's it
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:29 p.m.
But they can say whatever, and they are asked about their perspective
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:30 p.m.
ACID is not neutral
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:30 p.m.
That is a baseless allegation
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:30 p.m.
I know you don’t actually believe what you’re saying so I won’t hold it against you
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:30 p.m.
Especially since the case must be reviewed and approved by an uninvolved supervisor later on
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:31 p.m.
You're on some conjecture claiming that ACID's only purpose is to fire people
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:31 p.m.
But the main problem is that the affidavit has lies in it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:32 p.m.
He declined a police interrogation
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:33 p.m.
You claim it would be a police interrogation
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:33 p.m.
But he declined so how can he know how it'd look like?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 12:35 p.m.
I don’t even know what to say this is just laughable. I don’t think I need to respond to that
meowiittenmeowiitten
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 12:36 p.m.
Again I'm concerned about the truthfulness of Member C which is evidently lacking
DauuXDauuX
But the main problem is that the affidavit has lies in it
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 01:05 p.m.
What is the lie
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 01:05 p.m.
Just state the lie and why it is a lie
cabotcabot
What is the lie
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:08 p.m.
HK said they did not receive a notice of the charges against them. IHasMinionz literally DMed them and said they have allegedly violated § 4.09 of the Code of Conduct and explained briefly the incident.

HK said they had no chance to offer their perspective. IHasMinionz, in that same DM, asked them to "join the Discord server below, as [he] would like to hear [HK's] version of events regarding this incident."
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 01:09 p.m.
I see
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:10 p.m.
My impartial hearing before the Federal Bureau of Investigation's special agents after they ask me to come in for a tax fraud investigation
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 01:10 p.m.
Does this affidavit need to be amendment to reflect an error
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 01:10 p.m.
Amended
cabotcabot
Does this affidavit need to be amendment to reflect an error
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:10 p.m.
There's no error
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:10 p.m.
Notice would mean notice of a hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:10 p.m.
A time and place to be heard
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:10 p.m.
Not to be interrogated
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:10 p.m.
That's our interpretation
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 01:11 p.m.
Was this request to hear his version of events mirandised
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:11 p.m.
To my understanding it would've been, since IHasMinionz is an ACID investigator and Member A was mirandized during his interview.
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 01:12 p.m.
Okay I don’t know how that could be described as a hearing or be described as an “opportunity to relay their version of events”
meowiittenmeowiitten
Notice would mean notice of a hearing
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:12 p.m.
the affidavit says they received no notice of the charge
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 01:12 p.m.
Was he given a notice of the charge
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:12 p.m.
Yes, § 4.09 of the Code of Conduct
cabotcabot
Okay I don’t know how that could be described as a hearing or be described as an “opportunity to relay their version of events”
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:13 p.m.
What's stopping you from giving your version of the events there
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 01:13 p.m.
The threat of criminal prosecution probably
meowiittenmeowiitten
To my understanding it would've been, since IHasMinionz is an ACID investigator and Member A was mirandized during his interview.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:13 p.m.
Member A was interviewed right after a search which showed he was in possession of illegal firearms, that's why he was Mirandized
cabotcabot
The threat of criminal prosecution probably
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:14 p.m.
The section of the Code refers to violations of MCC, so naturally you'd be interviewed
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:14 p.m.
If the idea of a hearing is that you're given full immunity from prosecution then that's a bit unorthodox
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:14 p.m.
I made this neat infographic for all of us
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:15 p.m.
@cabot Could you pin this?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:15 p.m.
I feel like it would helpful to refer back to
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:15 p.m.
Err
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:15 p.m.
If a discharge is made on the basis of an arrest, and that arrest is vacated/reversed, the person can be hired back
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:16 p.m.
We wouldn't know since the MNG has no procedures for that
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:16 p.m.
The decision is taken not by the same person who conducted the investigation
meowiittenmeowiitten
We wouldn't know since the MNG has no procedures for that
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:16 p.m.
Actually it happened before
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:16 p.m.
My informal discretionary rule
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:16 p.m.
The appellate review is not by ACID
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:16 p.m.
My samurai honor code
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:16 p.m.
(But the ACID CO sits on it)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:16 p.m.
The MP Brigade CO sits on it, one member
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 01:16 p.m.
Good enough for me
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:17 p.m.
You're saying IA can't decide if someone broke policy basically
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 01:18 p.m.
Your Member C is asking me to ask for him to be added here
cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 02:51 p.m.
@meowiitten Are you sure Member A spoke with a superior?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 02:51 p.m.
I'm writing a response to the complaint and unsure whether this was meant to stay
DauuXDauuX
@meowiitten Are you sure Member A spoke with a superior?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 02:53 p.m.
I wasn't sure whether the interview offer was over DMs or in a server
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 02:53 p.m.
So I just said private message
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 03:59 p.m.
@meowiitten Are we in agreement that people who: (1) are permanently banned from the game; or (2) desert the community (leave all servers without notice) are not entitled to due process?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 03:59 p.m.
Unless their ban is rescinded, that is
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 04:01 p.m.
Only because its unable to be provided to them
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 04:01 p.m.
Sure, I won't cover any of that then
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 07:27 p.m.
Did you want summary judgment as well or not @DauuX
cabotcabot
Did you want summary judgment as well or not @DauuX
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:28 p.m.
I intend to reply
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:28 p.m.
I've got around 24 hrs as we agreed
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:28 p.m.
I am divided on SJ as I disagree strongly w/ the allegation that no notice of charges is provided
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:29 p.m.
And that can be proven
DauuXDauuX
I've got around 24 hrs as we agreed
cabot
cabot 2025-06-19 07:30 p.m.
Alright thank you
DauuXDauuX
I am divided on SJ as I disagree strongly w/ the allegation that no notice of charges is provided
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:40 p.m.
Well it’s a notice of the investigation
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:40 p.m.
When they’re given an actual formal notice of charges(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:40 p.m.
They’re already discharged
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:40 p.m.
They get the CID document
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:41 p.m.
Once you get the CID document which has all the documentation you’re already bounced
meowiittenmeowiitten
Well it’s a notice of the investigation
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:48 p.m.
Which contains the code of conduct allegation and a description of the incident
meowiittenmeowiitten
Once you get the CID document which has all the documentation you’re already bounced
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:50 p.m.
Difficult to send you a document with all documentation before that documentation can be gathered
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:50 p.m.
Obviously an initial notice contains initial information
DauuXDauuX
Difficult to send you a document with all documentation before that documentation can be gathered
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:53 p.m.
Also, notice means a time and place to be HEARD
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:53 p.m.
Notice of a time and place to be HEARD
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:53 p.m.
Not just a notice like "hey we're pursuing you on X, Y, and Z"
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:54 p.m.
So the core part of this is there there was no hearing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:54 p.m.
Again...
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:54 p.m.
48 hrs, Discord server
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:54 p.m.
God bless
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-19 07:56 p.m.
No need to argue here, as evidently we have different ideas. As long as we recognise the factual allegations, the rest is fine
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 07:59 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-20 04:15 p.m.
@cabot We now have a Member D
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-20 04:15 p.m.
But uh
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-20 04:16 p.m.
I will only include him if the MSJ is denied since he hopped on late
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-20 04:16 p.m.
He can be part of further discovery(edited)
cabot
cabot 2025-06-20 04:16 p.m.
Oh I see
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-20 05:52 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-06-20 05:56 p.m.
Tysm
cabot
cabot 2025-06-21 01:53 p.m.
Alright what needs addressing
cabot
cabot 2025-06-21 01:53 p.m.
Summary judgment
cabotcabot
Alright what needs addressing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-21 01:56 p.m.
Yes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-21 01:57 p.m.
SJ
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-21 06:22 p.m.
@cabot Are you gonna take the day and push the judgment for tomorrow(edited)
cabot
cabot 2025-06-21 06:25 p.m.
Hey im gonna take the day, pushing all the other smaller cases off my docket so i can sit down and right tomorrow
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-21 07:11 p.m.
no rush
❤️1
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-22 12:42 p.m.
Response to civil complaint just for the sake of formality
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-22 12:43 p.m.
It was written on the 19th but I forgot to submit it. I doubt it's needed due to the MSJ
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-22 04:51 p.m.
@cabot Need more time?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-22 04:51 p.m.
Yeah sorry
cabot
cabot 2025-06-22 04:53 p.m.
Im writing for <#1380998881940213770> now, need to publish short ruling in <#1370867218497405070> , default order in alaattinosmanoglu-et-al-v-eddeb123 and then oral/written decision in <#1381661550619918456>
cabot
cabot 2025-06-22 04:54 p.m.
That should leave me finishing my writing at around midnight (optimistic) then I need to go run and go to bed
cabot
cabot 2025-06-22 04:54 p.m.
You will my decision tomorrow morning :😄:
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-22 04:54 p.m.
Its not like i wanted a ruling today anyway
😭1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-22 04:54 p.m.
BAKA
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-23 02:59 p.m.
@cabot Sir. Please.
cabot
cabot 2025-06-23 06:17 p.m.
Okay I cleared all the shit cases from my docket today
cabot
cabot 2025-06-23 06:17 p.m.
You're up tomorrow baby @meowiitten @DauuX
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:17 p.m.
AwesomeJCabotPIays
😭1
cabotcabot
You're up tomorrow baby @meowiitten @DauuX
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-23 06:18 p.m.
Coincidentally on my birthday
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-23 06:18 p.m.
Nice ruling pls fr :🙏:
😭1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:25 p.m.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MSJ
Summary judgment should also be granted because there is no factual dispute, only a legal disagreement about what due process requires
/s/
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:27 p.m.
@cabot I asked ChatGPT and it said it would grant summary judmgnet
😭2
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-23 06:27 p.m.
I would ask this be incorporated
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-23 06:27 p.m.
Buddy
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-23 06:27 p.m.
this is NOT factual
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 03:10 p.m.
@cabot Please. Sir.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 04:49 p.m.
@cabot Sir. Please.
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 04:54 p.m.
hEY
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 04:54 p.m.
Im writing it now
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:10 p.m.
@meowiitten
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:10 p.m.
Hi I have some questions whilst I am drafting
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:10 p.m.
Can you answer them?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:10 p.m.
Yes
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:10 p.m.
What is the impact of the at-will statute on this?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:11 p.m.
The statute specifically stipulates that if someone is to be terminated at-will, then it must be an honorable discharge
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:12 p.m.
And for a dishonorable discharge?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:12 p.m.
There only needs to be finding of misconduct by internal affairs
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:12 p.m.
There's no procedure for it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:13 p.m.
But anything less than honorable is not under the at-will chapter of the MSC
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:13 p.m.
My understanding is for the DPC to provide a property interest in employment there must be either an expectation of continued employment (English model of indefinite tenure/employment) or a state statute proscribes that firing can only take place for cause (i.e., falls into the first category I stated) and therefore it is protected.

Is that right?
(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:14 p.m.
For cause would be a finding of misconduct for the purpose of DD
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:14 p.m.
So the DD is for cause?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:14 p.m.
Yes
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:15 p.m.
And then an honourable or other methods of discharges are at-will?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:15 p.m.
No
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:15 p.m.
Let me send a photo of the statute
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:17 p.m.
There is two statutes in the chapter dedicated entirely to at-will termination and it requires that it be done by honorable discharge. That is expressed no where else and cannot be inferred (in consideration of expressio unius est exclusio alterius) that someone is at-will if their discharge is less than honorable, in my opinion. Everything else, dishonorable discharge and general discharge, is for-cause.(edited)
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:19 p.m.
Yes that was the observation I think I made in Zhriem, does this not create effectively two-tiered rights? Why can't they just honorably discharge someone for at-will and avoid this whole procedure
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:20 p.m.
I can't send this but
✅1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:20 p.m.
Let me fix automod
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:20 p.m.
Fixed
cabotcabot
Yes that was the observation I think I made in Zhriem, does this not create effectively two-tiered rights? Why can't they just honorably discharge someone for at-will and avoid thi...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:21 p.m.
In my reading, the state can elect whether or not to give you a property interest if they choose to honorably discharge or dishonorably discharge you. But I think that, in general, there is an interest in continued employment regardless given the nature of these jobs
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:21 p.m.
Yes I think I would agree there
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:21 p.m.
In this case, they elected to vest him with a property interest by attaching a stigma to his termination
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:21 p.m.
As well
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:21 p.m.
A property and liberty interest
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:22 p.m.
Can you explain this stigma thing to me
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:22 p.m.
I didn't address it in Zhriem
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:22 p.m.
So does stigma invoke a liberty interest?
meowiittenmeowiitten
There is two statutes in the chapter dedicated entirely to at-will termination and it requires that it be done by honorable discharge. That is expressed no where else and cannot ...(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:22 p.m.
Conditional employment
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:22 p.m.
@DauuX Feel free to chime in with any info you see fit btw
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:23 p.m.
Also we can show but-for causation with the stigma, that being, his less than honorable discharge, in the case of Member A
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:23 p.m.
If not for his dishonorable discharge, he wouldn't be barred from reenlistment from the MNG
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:24 p.m.
And future job opportunities, by extension and implication
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:24 p.m.
He would be barred from reenlistment as he has never completed training
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:24 p.m.
So the discharge itself, because it is dishonourable and MSC includes such adversely in background checks, invokes stigma plus?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:24 p.m.
And was a conditional employee
cabotcabot
So the discharge itself, because it is dishonourable and MSC includes such adversely in background checks, invokes stigma plus?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:24 p.m.
Yes
cabotcabot
So the discharge itself, because it is dishonourable and MSC includes such adversely in background checks, invokes stigma plus?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:24 p.m.
I would say so
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:25 p.m.
And is does stigma plus invoke a separate liberty interest from the property interest in the job?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:25 p.m.
Yes
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:25 p.m.
That's what I got from skimming that article
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:25 p.m.
I see
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:25 p.m.
That's what they say
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:25 p.m.
I made this argument in Zrihem
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:25 p.m.
But a post-deprivation hearing clears out the liberty interest
✅1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:25 p.m.
And so what impact does stigma plus have on the property interest
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:26 p.m.
Does it attach higher scrutiny or something?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:26 p.m.
Or is it only relevant for money damages
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:26 p.m.
Well yes, he cannot seek the same job and he cannot seek, or is at least severly impaired in his pursuit of future employment
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:26 p.m.
So stigma plus requires higher levels/more rigorous due process?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:26 p.m.
Stigma-plus is essentially a tool to clear your name, while a property interest is a tool to retain employment
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:27 p.m.
I see
cabotcabot
So stigma plus requires higher levels/more rigorous due process?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:27 p.m.
I would refer you back to the real life military procedure, where dishonorable discharge is only awarded after felony conviction by a court martial
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:27 p.m.
That is a criminal trial
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:27 p.m.
So what is the impact of stigma plus here
meowiittenmeowiitten
Well yes, he cannot seek the same job and he cannot seek, or is at least severly impaired in his pursuit of future employment
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:27 p.m.
.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:27 p.m.
Lack of employment opportunities
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:28 p.m.
It harms your name and standing, not just your current employment
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:28 p.m.
But I mean how does that impact / factor into the court's analysis of the property interest (assuming it exists) if it's a separate liberty interest
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:28 p.m.
Do you mean the standard of scrutiny
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:28 p.m.
I guess so
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:29 p.m.
Is there a uniform test / difference in analysis if you're looking only at property interest vs property interest with stigma plus attach
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:29 p.m.
ed
cabotcabot
But I mean how does that impact / factor into the court's analysis of the property interest (assuming it exists) if it's a separate liberty interest
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:29 p.m.
I think it's more so a safeguard if the court finds no property interest
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:29 p.m.
Oh that makes sense
DauuXDauuX
I think it's more so a safeguard if the court finds no property interest
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:29 p.m.
So and so
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:29 p.m.
Somewhat
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:30 p.m.
Stigma-plus is inherently based on being allowed to defend your name and is not dependent on contracts
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:30 p.m.
While property interest generally is
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:30 p.m.
So really stigma plus is a separate legal claim?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:30 p.m.
A discharge without public reason can trigger property interest protection, but not stigma
✅1
cabotcabot
So really stigma plus is a separate legal claim?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:31 p.m.
I'd say so
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:31 p.m.
But here Sado you ask that it be factored holistically into the court's analysis for higher scrutiny?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:31 p.m.
So stigma will never attach to an at-will firing?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:32 p.m.
Since it's "honourable"
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:32 p.m.
As long as you do not name the reasons for it, yes
cabotcabot
So stigma will never attach to an at-will firing?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:32 p.m.
I agree it would not
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:32 p.m.
So what would stop this from happening all over again, but MNG fires Claimant A under at-will procedure and doesn't name a reason
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:32 p.m.
You could at-will someone and then accuse them (e.g. in announcements), stigma could attach here
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:33 p.m.
But if you say "Honorable Discharge: He raped five employees" then yes that is stigma
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:33 p.m.
But then they would only get a name-clearing hearing, which makes sense there
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:33 p.m.
Post-deprivation process
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:33 p.m.
Here it does not because of the innate nature of a DD
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:33 p.m.
Agreed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:33 p.m.
A DD is inherently stigma-infused
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:33 p.m.
A DD carries a notion of misconduct
cabotcabot
So what would stop this from happening all over again, but MNG fires Claimant A under at-will procedure and doesn't name a reason
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:34 p.m.
What about this
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:34 p.m.
Is this not a loophole or am I missing something
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:34 p.m.
We'd be within our right to do so
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:34 p.m.
Also recruits (like Member A) are conditional employees and can be fired for any reason
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:35 p.m.
I'm unsure if the conditional employee act was part of PSA or separate
DauuXDauuX
We'd be within our right to do so
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:35 p.m.
And do you agree that a property interest exists here or do you disagree
cabotcabot
So what would stop this from happening all over again, but MNG fires Claimant A under at-will procedure and doesn't name a reason
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:35 p.m.
I think it would be a loophole but its a tolerable one. It's strange
cabotcabot
And do you agree that a property interest exists here or do you disagree
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:36 p.m.
For Member A? Not really since he's conditional
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:36 p.m.
But I argued the general MNG scheme
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:36 p.m.
In my brief
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:36 p.m.
And then the greater membership must be considered, which was provided for in discovery
meowiittenmeowiitten
I think it would be a loophole but its a tolerable one. It's strange
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:36 p.m.
And the statute ousts the court's jurisdiction altogether from deciding on at-will terminations, thoughts on its constitutional legitimacy
DauuXDauuX
For Member A? Not really since he's conditional
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:36 p.m.
Whats the difference between conditional
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:36 p.m.
And other employees
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:37 p.m.
All recruits, trainees, people undergoing academy are conditional
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:37 p.m.
And can be fired for any reason
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:37 p.m.
The statute allows that?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:37 p.m.
I think this was passed separately from PSA
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:37 p.m.
I see, and was this guy a conditional employee?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:37 p.m.
4 M.S.C. 7 7101
❤️1
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:37 p.m.
Member A was
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:38 p.m.
I don't know what ranks B and C were
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:38 p.m.
Would you agree that stigma plus implicitly requires a higher level of due process @DauuX ?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:38 p.m.
So you could probably feel free to consider the scheme at-large without feeling limited to Member A(edited)
✅1
meowiittenmeowiitten
So you could probably feel free to consider the scheme at-large without feeling limited to Member A(edited)
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:39 p.m.
The at-will scheme at large or the differentiation between conditional and non-conditional employees?
cabotcabot
Would you agree that stigma plus implicitly requires a higher level of due process @DauuX ?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:40 p.m.
Not exactly. I think a property interest would be heavier on pre-deprivation, while stigma focuses on post-deprivation. But DPC is flexible
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:40 p.m.
No the MNG's discharge procedure and whatnot as it relates to the most nominal situation, that being whether you are a conditional or non-conditional employee
✅1
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:41 p.m.
It is a standard rule that hardly ever is a full evidentiary hearing (trial-like) required
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:41 p.m.
DauuXDauuX
I think this was passed separately from PSA
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:41 p.m.
Comments
5
Labels
RETURNED FAVORABLY, PASSED SENATE, SIGNED INTO LAW
❤️1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:41 p.m.
Great, and what was the issue you said that Zrihem didn't resolve, you said I would have to decide on one issue that was a dichotomy, I've forgot what it was @meowiitten
cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
cabotcabot
Great, and what was the issue you said that Zrihem didn't resolve, you said I would have to decide on one issue that was a dichotomy, I've forgot what it was @meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:42 p.m.
Whether its binding or not and what process is actually due
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:42 p.m.
Something like that
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:42 p.m.
This case is essence just asking what process is due
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:42 p.m.
Whether ACID interview alone is sufficient
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:43 p.m.
Pre-deprivation
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:43 p.m.
Great
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:43 p.m.
What essentially needs to be done for it to be a meanigful opportunity to defend oneself
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:43 p.m.
And you think the ACID interview is sufficient enough?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:43 p.m.
(Aimed at Dauux)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:43 p.m.
I would say so, yes
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:43 p.m.
On the basis that he got to speak his truth?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:44 p.m.
It is meant to gather the facts and perspectives
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:44 p.m.
We have cleared people before on its basis
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:44 p.m.
And do other state agencies have an equivalent of the DD?
DauuXDauuX
We have cleared people before on its basis
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:44 p.m.
That's interesting, in ACID interviews where they are detained or general voluntary ones
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:44 p.m.
I don't really have an image of what else you could do (othed than a full trial which would be an unimaginable burden)
cabotcabot
That's interesting, in ACID interviews where they are detained or general voluntary ones
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:45 p.m.
The detained ones are pursuant to a search/immediately before an arrest
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:45 p.m.
So the MP officer already has PC
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:45 p.m.
Dishonorable discharge isn't a concept outside of the military in real life, to my knowledge, which is why this is incredibly strange
cabotcabot
That's interesting, in ACID interviews where they are detained or general voluntary ones
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:46 p.m.
We've cleared people before on the general ones
✅1
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:46 p.m.
I do not know about the other part of the question
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:46 p.m.
But to me there's two ends to the spectrum and there's a really hard line to walk
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:46 p.m.
I think ACID interviews are insufficient entirely
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:47 p.m.
I mean it prompts the question (perhaps of benefit to the Court): what would be sufficient?
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:47 p.m.
But I also think a full trial would be administratively impossible. HOWEVER. That is how it should work with dishonorable discharges, which are essentially, on their face, a finding of criminal conduct(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:47 p.m.
In almost all cases a pre-deprivation hearing is a PC determinatiob
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:48 p.m.
Determination*
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:48 p.m.
Would you call the ACID interview a hearing first and foremost
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-24 08:48 p.m.
Not "place to be heard," but generally what objectively constitutes a hearing(edited)
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:48 p.m.
What about the simple ability to prove the allegations in an administrative hearing overseen by a neutral JAG? Is that administratively unworkable?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:49 p.m.
On its own probably no. But the questioning is then analysed by a supervisor
meowiittenmeowiitten
Would you call the ACID interview a hearing first and foremost
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:49 p.m.
Regarding this
cabotcabot
What about the simple ability to prove the allegations in an administrative hearing overseen by a neutral JAG? Is that administratively unworkable?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:50 p.m.
JAs are already involved oftentimes in defending the guardsman (as mandated by state law). I'm unsure whether this wouldn't cause concerns for "collusion" between the JAGC members(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:51 p.m.
But I think the idea has been discussed before—although I do not guarantee it
DauuXDauuX
JAs are already involved oftentimes in defending the guardsman (as mandated by state law). I'm unsure whether this wouldn't cause concerns for "collusion" between the JAGC members(edited)
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:51 p.m.
Not that I suspect collusion would occur, just mere concerns from some people
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:52 p.m.
What about the simple ability to "appoint" neutral military administrative judges to have an opportunity to be heard before
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:53 p.m.
For JAG to prove their cases
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:53 p.m.
My question is who'd pick them and whether this requires legislative intervention
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:54 p.m.
After all other state agencies probably employ similar schemes
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:54 p.m.
And they do not have a JAGC equivalent
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:54 p.m.
I see
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:54 p.m.
What are the state agency equivalents of the DD scheme
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:55 p.m.
Do they have senior officers hear accusations and have them sustain them or something before dismissal?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:55 p.m.
All agencies can issue DDs, but I am unaware of their due process protections
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:55 p.m.
I can ask around but that could take days and not everyone may wish to share
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:56 p.m.
I think the standard is that IA just handles investigations entirely
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:57 p.m.
The Guard has two modes of appeal. The Command Group Appeal mode I mentioned is triggered with discharges, otherwise you have a standard tribunal. I think this also ought to be considered
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:57 p.m.
I would assume IA asks for voluntary interviews and then makes recommendations to their senior officers
DauuXDauuX
The Guard has two modes of appeal. The Command Group Appeal mode I mentioned is triggered with discharges, otherwise you have a standard tribunal. I think this also ought to be con...
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:57 p.m.
Can you expand more
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:58 p.m.
Also do we have an administrative court in statute
cabotcabot
Also do we have an administrative court in statute
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:58 p.m.
We do
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 08:58 p.m.
Unsure if they actually exist
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:58 p.m.
What is their job
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:59 p.m.
post-deprivation procedures?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-24 08:59 p.m.
or pre
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 09:00 p.m.
Post I think but I'd need to check
cabotcabot
Can you expand more
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 09:00 p.m.
Posted the other one in the group chat
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-24 09:00 p.m.
I'm fairly sure our policy is confidential so that's why(edited)
✅1
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-25 08:18 a.m.
:🦧:
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-25 02:50 p.m.
@cabot Today :❓:
cabot
cabot 2025-06-25 02:51 p.m.
Yep
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-26 06:39 p.m.
Today?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-26 06:42 p.m.
@cabot
cabot
cabot 2025-06-26 08:01 p.m.
Yes writing now
cabot
cabot 2025-06-26 08:01 p.m.
I have awesomeplays disease
cabot
cabot 2025-06-26 08:01 p.m.
Sos
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-27 03:24 a.m.
Wait in line.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-27 05:50 a.m.
Today
actxrzactxrz
Wait in line.
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-27 05:50 a.m.
We're the priority
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-27 11:23 a.m.
Today?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-27 03:13 p.m.
@cabot Today?
✅1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 03:34 p.m.
Hi
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 03:34 p.m.
Sure
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 03:34 p.m.
I've delayed this because I realised how suicidal writing the Zhriem dissent made me
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 08:36 p.m.
@meowiitten @DauuX
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 08:36 p.m.
Opinion coming in 20 mins ish
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 08:36 p.m.
Maybe less
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 08:36 p.m.
Stayed up till 2am for this since 11pm :😄:
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-27 08:38 p.m.
My condolences
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 09:11 p.m.
@meowiitten @DauuX
cabotcabot
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-27 09:56 p.m.
Could you put this in the government announcements
✅1
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 10:05 p.m.
Done
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 10:13 p.m.
Yep I keep getting bloody timed out for some reason
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 10:13 p.m.
It pmo
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-27 10:26 p.m.
Just for the record CAFER's representative law firm (my law firm) has submitted a letter to MNG
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D9Nte-VaWMX3wO2NPd-OZCgf2Vt1sZkN/view?usp=sharing
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-27 10:27 p.m.
what happened to old template
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-27 10:27 p.m.
:🙁:
actxrzactxrz
what happened to old template
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 10:28 p.m.
It became ugly :😭:
cabotcabot
It became ugly :😭:
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-27 10:28 p.m.
I liked it more gng
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-27 10:28 p.m.
the stamp thing was ok
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-27 10:29 p.m.
ya fr
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-27 10:29 p.m.
The stamp was cheese
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-27 10:29 p.m.
made u worthy of your lordship
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 10:29 p.m.
WTF im gonna have to find a halfway point
cabot
cabot 2025-06-27 10:29 p.m.
Now I look cheap
cabot pinned a message to this channel.2025-09-27 08:15 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 02:49 a.m.
Will there be an appeal so I know whether to shut the chat? @actxrz @DauuX @meowiitten
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 02:50 a.m.
If you are thinking of pursuing one I'd advise you to wait until later today for a SCOM opinion on LETI v RRP which may influence your decision
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-28 02:54 a.m.
I will be appealing
✅1
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 03:54 a.m.
@cabot We still know nothing about the general scheme MNG employed
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 03:55 a.m.
This opinion completely overlooks it and makes a brief mention of Member A's situation, which I explained is different
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 03:57 a.m.
And still, the neutral decisionmaker could still be ACID for all intents and purposes
DauuXDauuX
@cabot We still know nothing about the general scheme MNG employed
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 05:39 a.m.
And here I mean the appeal opportunity, which is very much relevant to the liberty interests protection
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-28 06:59 a.m.
@DauuX ok sort this out and lmk if you wanna appeal sgo will handle it.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-06-28 06:59 a.m.
i’d prefer you’d work everything out here
DauuXDauuX
And here I mean the appeal opportunity, which is very much relevant to the liberty interests protection
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 08:56 a.m.
Not to mention that the Court's suggestion that a name-clearing hearing can be a pre-deprivation hearing is ipso facto contradictory and unsupported by any precedent, as well as any logic
DauuXDauuX
And still, the neutral decisionmaker could still be ACID for all intents and purposes
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:25 a.m.
I said that the neutral decision maker is not ACID
cabotcabot
I said that the neutral decision maker is not ACID
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 09:25 a.m.
Because you presume they are partial
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 09:25 a.m.
Which is, again, unsupported by SCOTUS precedent
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:27 a.m.
Again I’m not using scotus precedent on the matter because it isn’t even workable
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 09:28 a.m.
...?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 09:28 a.m.
How about we use Ugandan precedent?
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:28 a.m.
Nope
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:28 a.m.
No need I used English and American precedent which reflects the versatility of our beautiful state
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:28 a.m.
Do not fear
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 09:28 a.m.
You did the opposite of using American precedent
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:29 a.m.
You may file your notice of appeal but we shall not discuss this any further
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:29 a.m.
God bless you and god bless the troops
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:29 a.m.
I love workers I love them so much
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 09:29 a.m.
And you refuse to acknowledge the appeal process?
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-06-28 09:29 a.m.
We might have to submit a motion to reconsider if we want to bring that in the appeal
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:30 a.m.
Oh of course I would love to add an additional section contextualising the unconstitutionality even further(edited)
cabot
cabot 2025-06-28 09:30 a.m.
I will do this in due course god bless you
cabot
cabot 2025-07-02 04:49 p.m.
Judgment will be updated tomorrow
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-02 05:22 p.m.
Oh
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-02 05:22 p.m.
Is it substantial @cabot
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-02 05:22 p.m.
I was going to finish a motion to reconsider
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-02 05:22 p.m.
I suppose I'll wait for the update
cabot
cabot 2025-07-02 05:53 p.m.
Uh I'm not sure yet was going to decide tomorrow
cabot
cabot 2025-07-02 05:53 p.m.
Feel free to submit it then I can work it into it @DauuX
cabotcabot
Feel free to submit it then I can work it into it @DauuX
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-02 05:54 p.m.
I still need to finish it
✅1
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-02 05:54 p.m.
cus I've had some additional reading to do
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 03:46 p.m.
cabot
cabot 2025-07-20 05:26 p.m.
Np
cabot
cabot 2025-07-20 05:32 p.m.
Interesting read
cabot
cabot 2025-07-20 05:32 p.m.
Any response to this @meowiitten
cabotcabot
Any response to this @meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:33 p.m.
I kind of skimmed it but the last section is ridiculous and taking what was said out of context
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:34 p.m.
Also to my knowledge 2 of 4 of my members had their names cleared
meowiittenmeowiitten
I kind of skimmed it but the last section is ridiculous and taking what was said out of context
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:34 p.m.
Why would they not be entitled to a name-clearing hearing if this is a due process challenge
meowiittenmeowiitten
Why would they not be entitled to a name-clearing hearing if this is a due process challenge
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:37 p.m.
That’d be a different kind of hearing
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:38 p.m.
Name clearing is triggered by liberty interest
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:38 p.m.
And only so when the public reasons are contested
DauuXDauuX
Name clearing is triggered by liberty interest
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:40 p.m.
Pretty sure he said there was a liberty interest
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:41 p.m.
@cabot If you do an opinion on the MTR all I’d ask is that you spell out the exact process that is due
✅1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:42 p.m.
It can be short
cabot
cabot 2025-07-20 05:43 p.m.
Sure
cabot
cabot 2025-07-20 05:43 p.m.
Thank you
meowiittenmeowiitten
Pretty sure he said there was a liberty interest
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:43 p.m.
Yes but the issue is that a name clearing hearing is pointless unless you contest the facts behind the removal
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:43 p.m.
and you did not plead that here (quite to the contrary actually)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:44 p.m.
I mean what are you trying to say? The issue wasn’t ripe?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:45 p.m.
It’s all in the fold of due process
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:45 p.m.
Not that either because you pleaded both property and liberty interest
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:45 p.m.
My issue is that the pleadings do not give rise to a name clearing hearing specifically
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:45 p.m.
Well he found that a DD without process invokes a liberty interest I am pretty sure
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:45 p.m.
Ergo……
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:46 p.m.
Ok but again
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:46 p.m.
In Codd they literally say you must plead the action was on false grounds
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:46 p.m.
Obviously the DD inherently places a badge of infamy on you but that is not enough
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:46 p.m.
How can we plead it was on false grounds if there was no process to contest at all
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:47 p.m.
They knew the reasons for their removal...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:47 p.m.
I’m not doing this again
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-20 05:47 p.m.
You can appeal to SCOM
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:47 p.m.
SGO wants to
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-20 05:47 p.m.
And rightfully so
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-27 03:22 p.m.
@cabot
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-27 03:22 p.m.
Shall we consider the motion denied and proceed w/ appeal
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-27 03:22 p.m.
or would you like to rule on it
cabot
cabot 2025-07-27 04:26 p.m.
I will deny the motion you are thanked nonetheless
cabot
cabot 2025-07-27 04:26 p.m.
SGO may appeal
cabotcabot
SGO may appeal
DauuX
DauuXGeneral Staff2025-07-27 04:57 p.m.
@actxrz
cabot
cabot 2025-08-04 01:30 p.m.
Ready for archiving
krmkrm used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 09:51 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 09:51 a.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Volume XI.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-09-12 09:51 a.m.
Exported 1134 messages